Posted - 2011.04.20 00:35:00 -
[31]
The fact that the timers for anchor and unanchor are so long is simply ridiculous.

I mean i can see having it take a while to set up, but when it takes 2 hours to set up POS (And having to sit there with it the vast majority of the time), and almost 4 hours to take the damn thing down its just silly.

POS are worth a good bit and the fact that for most people it is more cost effective to just leave them behind in my opinion shows that something is wrong. (see abandoned towers in wormholes or else where)

Actually, scratch these instructions. The macro instructions I would want to give to CCP would be "make POSes less eyestabbingly painful".

All they should have to do is basically just run through setting up 10 deathstars and 10 complex reactions with 4 inputs and 1 output, and coupling arrays for each input/output. After that they should maintain those reaction towers for 2 weeks with at least 2 changes in reactions.

Posted - 2011.04.20 04:00:00 -
[33]Edited by: Tsubutai on 20/04/2011 04:02:08We need queues for anchoring and unanchoring modules. The timers are annoying, but I can see the general idea behind their existence. However, I cannot fathom what game design/balance purpose is served by forcing me to spend those hours clicking a couple of buttons, then waiting for ten minutes doing nothing, then clicking another button and waiting another ten minutes, etc. etc. As someone else said, it should be possible to draw up a plan for a POS layout, dump the requisite bits and pieces in space, and click "assemble" and then have it build itself over a suitably long period of time. The same goes for the teardown process - I should be able to access the tower management interface, select whichever mods I want unanchored, hit the red button, and then walk away and come back in a few hours' time rather than having to do each one individually.

POS labs and manufacturing arrays need to be able to access materials from a common source rather than each having their own cargo bays. I don't care whether this is achieved by introducing a new storage module or by having the existing modules pool their storage facilities once anchored, but it's absolutely infuriating to drop off a bunch of materials in the labs and start queueing jobs only to have to go back and reshuffle your materials around because you miscalculated and accidentally put too many datacores in lab 1 and not enough in lab 2 or whatever.

More options for allowing people to access specific parts of a POS' functionality without having to grant them roles that allow them to do whatever they want or even join your corp. If my buddy's POS comes under attack and I have a couple of POS gunners in an altcorp, why shouldn't I be allowed to have them man the guns for him? Why is it basically impossible for me to offer full access to my labs and other facilities to my corpmates without also allowing them to take everything I have?

edit:

Originally by:"Lord Zim"All they should have to do is basically just run through setting up 10 deathstars and 10 complex reactions with 4 inputs and 1 output, and coupling arrays for each input/output. After that they should maintain those reaction towers for 2 weeks with at least 2 changes in reactions.

Thissssssssss, only they should be obliged to tear the POS down and restore all mods and towers to their hangars at the end of the exercise as well.

Posted - 2011.04.20 04:35:00 -
[34]
Give pos's slots, like ships for the modularity (bigger pos more fittings). And have everything connected directly to the tower, maybe save guns if it makes sense to have them outside (though I think it might look cooler to have them more like turrets on hard points on the pos itself, turning to hit enemy's, utilizing those fancy new turrets coming out).

Allow to be able to deploy Pos's for self, corp, and alliance. In addition to the whole deploying floating mods being a lengthy mess, the role thing is even more so forcing it to be a corp asset, getting roles in corp full of paranoid people can take like months.

Ability to name POS structures as we please. Having 4 corp hangars and trying to find something in them is pain in the ass

Ability to name tabs in corp hangars as we like individually for every hangar. Ability to make as much tabs as we need would be good too (maybe have a reasonable limit, say 20-30 tabs tops)

Access management, not only for POS itself, but hangars and ship bays. Giving roles to people isn't an option when you have 3 POSes with 6 corp hangars and need to give him access to only one. Roles help, but they are limited.

[*]If above is implemented, I wana be able to give/revoke access within "Edit member" menu

--------------------------------------------------

Originally by:BlacksquirrelThis is EVE. PVE can happen anywhere at anytime. Be prepared.

Posted - 2011.04.21 21:51:00 -
[38]
POSes have always been awful and the CCP made them worse.

- UI needs a SERIOUS overhaul and some form of in game central tracker would very useful- POS Fuel, its too bulky and too fiddly. The old proposal of Fuel rods was brilliant but reduce the volume, doing multiple runs is not my idea of fun.- Moon Goo needs some form of overhaul scrap this naff idea of 'racial' distribution, that being said there needs to be a high value goo that makes a decent amount of isk to help support alliances- POSes need some form of supercap defence, currently supercaps are essentially immune to POS defences. Mods also need to be far more resistant to fighter bombers- Building/Pulling down towers takes a lifetime and is so boring I would rather chop my own balls of with a dull rusty spoon- Building towers is a HUGE pain, the building UI needs updating, I would suggest talking to the ancient Egyptians about a more recent design- Forcefield access needs an overhaul, passwords are a pain and the system should have an option to allow blue entities to enter- POSes need some mods that allow personal item/ship storage. OFC theres the huge problem of how you empty it to remove mod (director?)- More 'in-forcefield' mods need to be nameable (silo, SMA, CHA etc)- Stront timers need more control (like the station timers) but still require stront to run, possibly allow remote modifications. Reduce stront (the item) volume!

Posted - 2011.04.25 13:41:00 -
[42]Edited by: xttz on 25/04/2011 13:42:00I am writing the final POS misery proposal document for the CSM based on various inputs, including this thread.

One idea I'm developing is a way to 'specialise' towers, in a similar fashion to the way T3 ship sub-systems or i-hub upgrades work. The idea is that inserting a certain upgrade into a tower unlocks new abilities or precludes others. We could also weave in the new AI developed for sleepers to make those weapons more effective when automated.For example, one upgrade may perform better against supercapitals (or automatically focus on their fight-bombers) but becomes more vulnerable to battleships. Another may increase moon mining yield at the cost of shield hitpoints.

The end goal of this is to make towers more interesting and varied, as well as giving more opportunities to use a wider variety of fleets ingame. Here are a few examples of ideas I've had so far:

Siege TowerOnly large guns can be onlined (no smalls or meds). Massive damage increase, huge tracking penalty and a sig radius bonus to all external modules. Energy neutralizers gain a RoF bonus, ECM modules become effective vs supercaps, and warp scramblers can tackle them. Stasis webs cannot be onlined on a tower with this upgrade.Makes the tower deadly vs capitals and super-capitals, but very vulnerable to battleships.

Logistics TowerOnly small and med guns can be onlined (no larges). Reduction in CPU/grid use of Cyno Beacon and Jump Bridge modules. Removes random locking delay for modules and grants them a scan resolution bonus. Any modules on this tower become incapacitated upon recieving armour damage.Makes the tower deadly against small ships, such as bombers and other gankers. However it becomes much easier to disable by a heavier force such as RR BS or lone capitals.

Industry TowerReduces CPU cost of industry modules like reactors and labs, at the cost of shield hitpoints. Shield hardeners cannot be onlined on a tower with this upgrade.

Support TowerIncreases the capacity of CHAs and SMAs, along with their access range. Medium guns use less grid and recieve a slight range bonus. The tower loses any inbuilt shield resistances and shield hardeners cost triple CPU to online.

I'm open to suggestions on what other specialised purposes towers could have. Also what limitations should there be on these specialisations, if any? E.g. should the upgrades be disallowed in high-sec, or even low-sec?

Posted - 2011.04.25 15:11:00 -
[43]
Some sort of change to the mechanics to allow easier management/configuration/setup of personal POSs.

As it stands, single users are unable to set up their own personal POSs without receiving corp roles that give them access to every POS; if this was changed to allow corps micromanagement of which users were allowed to config specific poses (e.g. a trusted group that was allowed to config all POSs, a logistics group that manages, say, JB POSs but not supercap staging POSs, and also managing POSs specifically: allowing eveguy x to access y POS in z system that he rats in), this would be much more practical.

From a corp viewpoint, they could manage POS security far easier, while allowing more users to help with logistics, but not in a way that potentially compromises them in the case of a spy. From the corp/alliance member's viewpoint (the "little guy"), this means they would be able to set up their own personal POS (to safe up while ratting, for example), with much less hassle.

On a slightly unrelated note, making the entering of POS passwords (and by extension, jump bridge passwords) persistent would be great: having to enter a password 10 times going up and down the z0rtal is somewhat irritating. If the password was persistent, this would be much more pleasant.

Originally by:xttzEdited by: xttz on 25/04/2011 13:42:00I am writing the final POS misery proposal document for the CSM based on various inputs, including this thread.

One idea I'm developing is a way to 'specialise' towers, in a similar fashion to the way T3 ship sub-systems or i-hub upgrades work. The idea is that inserting a certain upgrade into a tower unlocks new abilities or precludes others. We could also weave in the new AI developed for sleepers to make those weapons more effective when automated.For example, one upgrade may perform better against supercapitals (or automatically focus on their fight-bombers) but becomes more vulnerable to battleships. Another may increase moon mining yield at the cost of shield hitpoints.

The end goal of this is to make towers more interesting and varied, as well as giving more opportunities to use a wider variety of fleets ingame. Here are a few examples of ideas I've had so far:

Siege TowerOnly large guns can be onlined (no smalls or meds). Massive damage increase, huge tracking penalty and a sig radius bonus to all external modules. Energy neutralizers gain a RoF bonus, ECM modules become effective vs supercaps, and warp scramblers can tackle them. Stasis webs cannot be onlined on a tower with this upgrade.Makes the tower deadly vs capitals and super-capitals, but very vulnerable to battleships.

Logistics TowerOnly small and med guns can be onlined (no larges). Reduction in CPU/grid use of Cyno Beacon and Jump Bridge modules. Removes random locking delay for modules and grants them a scan resolution bonus. Any modules on this tower become incapacitated upon recieving armour damage.Makes the tower deadly against small ships, such as bombers and other gankers. However it becomes much easier to disable by a heavier force such as RR BS or lone capitals.

Industry TowerReduces CPU cost of industry modules like reactors and labs, at the cost of shield hitpoints. Shield hardeners cannot be onlined on a tower with this upgrade.

Support TowerIncreases the capacity of CHAs and SMAs, along with their access range. Medium guns use less grid and recieve a slight range bonus. The tower loses any inbuilt shield resistances and shield hardeners cost triple CPU to online.

I'm open to suggestions on what other specialised purposes towers could have. Also what limitations should there be on these specialisations, if any? E.g. should the upgrades be disallowed in high-sec, or even low-sec?

Player A can online modules and fuel pos APlayer B can offline silos on Pos A and B but not CPlayer C can has full control over pos C but cannot do anything with A and B.

Improved notifications showing time left not just amounts. And I wouldnt mind Audit logs on pos structures so you can see who took what out and when.

Make anchoring levels do something to reduce the time it takes to anchor a module, increase a queue, or allow for multiple things to be anchored simultaneously.

A better anchoring interface that allows for some sort of templating of where mods are anchored in a pos for more uniform configurations or corp standards.

Make starbase defense management useful for something besides gunning. My idea would be something like marketing skills. Level 1 allows for remote management within the same solar system, Level 2 extends that range to systems within 5 jumps, and each subsequent level then doubles it. Level 5 allows for remote management anywhere within current region.

The ability to unanchor guns with ammo in them. I dont care if it gets eaten in the process. Some sort of notification of low/no ammo in pos guns.

Allow regular or capital tractor beams to pull unanchored mods towards you as if they were cans.

Personally Id like to be able to build a tower kit in the station complete with some sort of fitting to say how I would like the modules deployed and a few hrs of fuel. Said kit is then brought out and anchored and I come back in a couple hours to find everything in its place and then I begin onlining. But that is probably wishful thinking.

Posted - 2011.04.26 07:13:00 -
[48]
The API is shockingly lacking when it comes to POS:

- I can't tell what the fuel consumption for LO/HW is via the API. This could probably be fixed with fuel pellets.- I can't tell which container is at which POS via the API. CCP stated in a roundtable that XYZ coordinates (not planet-moon) would be "not that hard, wait you're saying they're not in there already?" to implement. - I can't see POS configuration (anchored/online/Reaction configuration) via the API.

Also:- It's not possible to filter modules by status (online/anchored/incapped) on the overview.

Being able to connect silo to reactor by simply anchoring one to the other would be nice.

For me, right now, the most important issues are more fine grained roles/permissions, allowing the public to rent research slots (if there is a station or outpost in system), and making POS refineries respond to skills and implants.

Posted - 2011.04.27 08:10:00 -
[50]Edited by: Kidzukurenai Datael on 27/04/2011 08:14:36My biggest problem with the POS setup is the distinct lack of usable security features. It all works great until you want multiple members of multiple access levels accessing the same POS (which is pretty much all we use our POSes for; we are a WH corp)

The majority of the security problems would be solved quite simply by making an Items and a Ships module for the POS. What I mean by this is instead of forcing everyone to use the Corp Hangar, it would go a long way to security issues if we had a personal hangar and personal items space just like one would in a station; a separate POS module that provides these services to members.

That's the only part that I feel is disabling about living in a POS -- you can't keep your stuff safe! And when I want to keep all my shinies with me in a POS I don't want it so that anyone in corp can walk off with it!

The ONLY problem I can see is when it comes to removing items from the POS when a member who has items stored is offline. That could mean that it's not possible to move anything. If it was possible to remove stuff from the module without the owner's permission it would probably leave us back at square 1, but maybe members will just have to trust their directors and CEO..?

Edit: Adding this:The other possibility would be to have a permissions system per POS module like for chat rooms or mailing lists -- only the listed people are allowed to access this module.

Originally by:Kidzukurenai DataelEdited by: Kidzukurenai Datael on 27/04/2011 08:14:36My biggest problem with the POS setup is the distinct lack of usable security features. It all works great until you want multiple members of multiple access levels accessing the same POS (which is pretty much all we use our POSes for; we are a WH corp)

The majority of the security problems would be solved quite simply by making an Items and a Ships module for the POS. What I mean by this is instead of forcing everyone to use the Corp Hangar, it would go a long way to security issues if we had a personal hangar and personal items space just like one would in a station; a separate POS module that provides these services to members.

That's the only part that I feel is disabling about living in a POS -- you can't keep your stuff safe! And when I want to keep all my shinies with me in a POS I don't want it so that anyone in corp can walk off with it!

The ONLY problem I can see is when it comes to removing items from the POS when a member who has items stored is offline. That could mean that it's not possible to move anything. If it was possible to remove stuff from the module without the owner's permission it would probably leave us back at square 1, but maybe members will just have to trust their directors and CEO..?

Edit: Adding this:The other possibility would be to have a permissions system per POS module like for chat rooms or mailing lists -- only the listed people are allowed to access this module.

this!or a variation of thisplease anything to make poses livable inmake any or all of the folowing:- tabs in ship array- personal tabs in hangar/ship array (noone can acces anyone elses personal tab, maybe only CEO can purge a users personal tab to save space, destroying anything inside)- creation of infinite number of tabs with as many permissions to setup a tab per corp member, or infinite tabs with passwords- a new personal items and ships module as sugested by Kidzukurenai - anchoring GSC inside shields (special larger pos containers for this purpose)

in short any sollution so that members can have their own personal stuff without fear of theft, and the other way around, solution so that a corp can have (new) members they dont trust with valuable corp assets

please make poses possible to live in for a corp with more than 5 members

- also opening GSC (and other cans) from a hangar without having to switch to a indy and move it into cargo to open the thing

Originally by:Mr DurkaDurEdited by: Mr DurkaDur on 19/04/2011 00:59:05Edited by: Mr DurkaDur on 19/04/2011 00:48:58"Flogging of the dead horse" thread, found here. Also a new POS GUI, alert management, overall new features to the POS interface.

^ This ^

Also, I would like to see them able to be docked at, thus providing private ship and item hangars for corporation members that use it. This should utilize a system of "shared storage space" where the POS is upgraded to store Xm3 of items, and Ym3 of ships. Security Officer role would allow an individual to pull out of a persons personal ships & items hangar at that POS for cases where someone goes inactive, or is taking up to much space.

AND OMFG PLEASE IMPLEMENT THIS PART ASAP!We need to be able to "Based At" a player in the roles system to a POS!!!! This would alleviate a *TON* of the woes of the roles setup for POS access!!!- Aidan Patrick

Posted - 2011.04.29 14:01:00 -
[54]Edited by: Kwashi on 29/04/2011 14:03:00Edited by: Kwashi on 29/04/2011 14:02:49POS permissions are pretty unworkable if more than one player is using the same POS as a base.Theft is a huge problem from POSes, lacking some manner of keeping track of the items in the hangars.T3 pilots cannot refit fully at POSes.Shield-tanked ships have to wait a long time when attempting to sortie from a POS.

EDIT also, tearing down a POS tends to run into bugs regarding ammunition getting stuck inside the guns, making the tower impossible to recover without GM input.

Posted - 2011.04.30 00:27:00 -
[56]
id like to be able to add much more to a pos then currently and the cpu and power grid would just follow in fuel usedalso labs suck since i have to click threw each one to find the lowest qued slot, make them just one long list that can made longer or shorter based on how many upgrades the unit has.

Originally by:GeeShizzle MacCloudis it just me that i find it ridiculous a small anchorable audit logged secure cargo container can have an access log of all the changes made to it in something weighing 10 tonnes, yet a full large POS weighing in at 1,000 tonnes cant even manage to log changes to important security aspects of a POS's operation by who and when?

i find that absolutely absurd and it needs to change!

No its not you alone.

log in and out, changes in status, who made changes & when, inventory control, inventory limits (for those who have to store shuttles by the ****ing dozens!) inventory management... the list is endless...

Originally by:AxemasterWould be nice to be able to make a queue for anchoring and onlining structures, same with offlining and unanchoring. Honestly, having to spend hours checking every 15 minutes to start the next operation is just MADDENING.

And along with fixing the POS UI, can you please get them to fix the CORP UI? It's so damn bad, it's just...

While I agree with your first point, I don't feel the same about the second. The only thing that would make the Corp Security potential better, is if Station Container's could actually be locked in a Hangar, rather than pulled from Corp Hangar to players, re-passworded, looted, and returned.

Back to the OP.

Positioning POS Structures is absolute crap. Zooming out, zooming in, changing view from ship to POS, back to ship after moving a little, back to POS so you can move your ship to a better vantage point, back to ship so you can see the F'n structure. Bluntly, it sucks.

The alternative: just dropping the modules any old where, then anchoring them in a long, (we're talking hours and hours over days), dull, repetative process. Guy I quoted. His idea is good, if we have to have anchoring, onlining timers and such. Could be built into a new UI too, with plenty of other improvements.

Waiting 2 minutes, to do a repetition of what I mentioned above, and again another few minutes after that, or even six: That will drive a man absolutely mad, and make him lose all reason. Doing it for hours, on hours, on hours, will make him want to hunt down and kill/torture whoever made him do it, in a bad way. j/k but sorta not.

..and people wonder why PvP is so popular among the Nullsec crowd and Wormholer's, Lowsec peoples..

They just want to kill something any time they have anything to do with POS maintanence

Posted - 2011.04.30 02:37:00 -
[59]
It's Trauma. My last experience with setting up a POS, was testing Moon Mining on SISI. I never got to the testing stage.

Modules all have distances at which they can be from another, based on the size of their model and bounding box. This sucks.

Every time you get a new POS modules that has to work with other POS modules, you have to experiment and find out which models to place first, so you can have everything within the right distance to allow for reactions and all the rest. A Moon Harvester cannot be placed first, to allow the placement of a Silo or Complex Reactor.

Incidently, I found out the Silo can be placed anywhere, possibly even the other side of the POS. Somebody obviously tried to alleviate the pain at some point, by just making it completely free-roaming in that one instance.

No matter which way you set up a POS, with all it's structures, there are at least ten people who will want it changed, with exception to the guns. Why the guns? Because you can't bounce off them on warp in, and they don't generally get in your way, flying about the POS.

Guns is kind of a catch all for defensive modules in this case, with exception to shield hardeners.

Ammo. How I hate putting ammunition in all the guns. Freaking unbelievable how much of a drag this is. In practice, you get an Industrial with an MWD or AB and bookmark all the turret points for warp in, then bounce off moons to save time. It still takes forever, and you have do double and triple check the turrets to see if you missed one.

With the Industrials agility, you're still drifting like a log in a lake. Ideally, you have a Covert Op's transport for this, to make things even easier. Try it in a Badger II.

POS modules and guns take space, lots of it. No easy fix for that one.

Onlining and offlining defenses and Reactors/Alternative Structures. Like it isn't bad enough the first time, now every time a threat becomes viable, you have to offline Assembly Arrays and Research Lab's to online what is really only half of a reasonable defense for the POS. You can't have both. It's either Labs, Reactors and other similar facilities, or Defensive modules to give your POS a half decent combat advantage.

This is why reinforcement timers exist.

Yes, it takes forever to kill a POS, but once the guns are gone who cares.

There is so much wrong with these things: Fuel Storage and requirements, PG and CPU limitations, Structure placement, Ammunition, etc...

Speaking of ammunition. Placing guns and defensive modules outside the shields: You can't be so far away, and yet you can't be so close. I think the margin for effective placement is between 5-6 km from the shields, more or less, and you get a message that you can't place themodule there. Then, you have to wait for the delay timer to continue with what you were doing.

Last but not least: Size. How exactly do you fit a Moros in a Ship Maintanence Array anyhow? Stations are bad enough, but these things are almost smaller than a Tengu.

I mean really. We're in space, usually in close proximity to a sun. Is there a reason for not utilizing that, other than another f***ing isk sink?

That and what the others above me have said about existing problems other than fuel. And also, if I want a deathstar station, I should be able to get a focused fire cpu module for it for extra iskies/more grid and cpu. And fix the pw for shields to be optional (utilized if wanted, but defaults to positive standing set by the owner corp to allow access).

It really is a system with a lot of potential, if it could be worked on.

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.